Is Seeking Alpha out of control with anti-Tesla themes?

Either shorters are the largest investment group to dangle clickbait for or something is truly slanted at Seeking Alpha (perhaps due to the known, concerted anti-EV effort being funded by the Koch bros?).

Am I the only one that thinks the timing and tenuous connection to reality of this latest effort (and many other recent ones) there is a joke?:

Their problem is they are trying to get authors to always make "actionable" claims in their articles, because it gets clicks and sounds important. But the truth is most authors don't have the training/understanding/data/work ethic to competently give "actionable" advice positive or negative, so they end up making actionable claims without the actual info or record to back it up, and they skip doing balanced analysis so they inevitably go towards negative to get attention. That's why you get some authors that are consistently wrong, but very confident sounding about it. I counted one time I think it was John Peterson or Santos, they had like 50+ negative articles which were overwhelmingly wrong in hindsight, and yet they keep writing like they are experts on the subject. If you say it's gonna rain every day in the desert, you'll probably still be right once or twice a year, which is enough for some people.

Their problem is they are trying to get authors to always make "actionable" claims in their articles, because it gets clicks and sounds important. But the truth is most authors don't have the training/understanding/data/work ethic to competently give "actionable" advice positive or negative, so they end up making actionable claims without the actual info or record to back it up, and they skip doing balanced analysis so they inevitably go towards negative to get attention. That's why you get some authors that are consistently wrong, but very confident sounding about it. I counted one time I think it was John Peterson or Santos, they had like 50+ negative articles which were overwhelmingly wrong, and yet they keep writing like they are experts.

I am convinced that SA is 'institutionally' negative Tesla. The negative slant is aided and abutted by the SA owners and editors themselves.

Case in point: Montana Skeptic writes a whole article about a red M3 prototype in the Gigafactory not having a battery and is made of plastic exterior, and he shows a picture of the empty underbelly that he claimed that he got through his own sources - conclusion, the whole GF is a scam. While this in itself is silly and should not have been published (what is the big deal of a prototype not having a battery or is made of clay or plastic?), he also made a claim that Electrek failed to mention the absence of battery, or the plastic exterior in their live blog .

Turns out that picture with an empty underside, was actually Electrek's photo which you can see it in their website. Electrek even mentioned that the skin is plastic in their blog updates long before this SA hit piece was published.

Ideally there should have been an apology and Electrek's editor demanded that SA take down that picture. SA editors not only refused, but were supporting Montana Skeptic and making derogatory comments against Electrek.

I am convinced that SA is 'institutionally' negative Tesla. The negative slant is aided and abutted by the SA owners and editors themselves.

Case in point: Montana Skeptic writes a whole article about a red M3 prototype in the Gigafactory not having a battery and is made of plastic exterior, and he shows a picture of the empty underbelly that he claimed that he got through his own sources - conclusion, the whole GF is a scam. While this in itself is silly and should not have been published (what is the big deal of a prototype not having a battery or is made of clay or plastic?), he also made a claim that Electrek failed to mention the absence of battery, or the plastic exterior in their live blog .

Turns out that picture with an empty underside, was actually Electrek's photo which you can see it in their website. Electrek even mentioned that the skin is plastic in their blog updates long before this SA hit piece was published.

Ideally there should have been an apology and Electrek's editor demanded that SA take down that picture. SA editors not only refused, but were supporting Montana Skeptic and making derogatory comments against Electrek.

Click to expand...

I've already demanded that Seeking Alpha remove "Montana Skeptic" for verifiably false claims of fact, which I proved with citations. They won't. A libel lawsuit against SA will probably be successful one of these days because of their behavior.

I can understand the authors at SA writing all the click bait nonsense articles, they get paid per page view. The more controversial the article the more reads.

What really perplexes me is the 100s of lemmings that spew the same nonsense over and over in the comments. Who are these people? I really have to think they are paid FUDsters. Nothing else makes sense. Why would someone subject themselves to such utter nonsense and negativity unless they were paid?

I think Seeking Alpha has traditionally been largely negative about Tesla (with many TSLA shorters writing articles). There's also some people that are long TSLA writing articles, but not really as many. Negative articles tend to bring more attention than positive ones. Some of this may be natural human psychology.Why We Love Bad News More Than Good News